this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
1891 points (97.7% liked)

Memes

45595 readers
1228 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1984@lemmy.today 134 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Stop spying on your kid... Jesus.

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 92 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Kids need access to the internet at a super young age these days for school. If you don't have some sort of filter in place when they are in single digits or tweens you are just negligent. The internet has some dark corners.

[–] cynetri@midwest.social 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't mind just filters, but reporting it to the parent doesn't sit right with me. It probably depends on the parent though

[–] fluffery@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Its to make sure the kid isnt searching those topics

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah can you imagine a world where crabs could read?

[–] sounddrill@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Harder the surveillance, harder the kid works to bypass them

Kids are smart, good on OOP to teach their kids to use a VPN, about dual booting, and more

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the kid is old enough to purposely bypass the security, they're probably around the right age to find some of the stuff on the other side. But you don't want them accidentally stumbling into it because they searched something seemingly innocent.

[–] MajickmanW@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This brought a memory rushing back of me and a family friend in the mid 90s using the family computer to find funny websites.

Us: "Let's search butt.com!"

My godfather: "NOOOOO!!!"

[–] Misconduct@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I just wanted to look up blueberry waffles but I was derping hard and couldn't remember the word for blueberries... I was an adult at that point but just imagine a kid doing that on accident iykyk 💀

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If the kids old enough to figure out VPNs, dual booting, and all the other pretty simple workarounds then it is what it is. You can't control everything. I am talking about the little guys. And this dudes kid is googling how to teach crabs to talk. If someone is searching that they probably aren't ready to get completely unrestricted access because they are probably pretty young. Like I said, single digits or tweens.

[–] sounddrill@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is what it is

If the parents still try to restrict, which most unreasonably will, then the kid will simply grow better at this

This leads to the kid growing up with confiding in random people more than their family(this might lead to said friends being a bad influence on them, since they didn't learn how to differentiate good and bad people)

That or a general sense of distrust and surveillance

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Parents can literally get sued by the state for letting their children watch inappropriate stuff (at least where I live). You are obligated as a parent to restrict the access of your children to inappropriate media.

[–] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

There's a HUGE difference between restrictions via blockers and surveillance. I can assure you that no one here is arguing in favour of letting kids watch porn...

[–] EatMyDick@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So many privacy zealots here with absolutely zero clue what it means to raise a kid.

[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago

Bold of you to assume us privacy zealots aren't successfully raising kids

[–] StoicImpala@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

It's possible to block without spying on though.

[–] BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

thinking about my p history and that one video

Wasn’t quite different back then, it is easier now, and full of advertisements and stuff that make the happy chemicals go brrrr

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And the proper way is to teach your kids about it and stop treating kids like super fragile glass beings.

Your city probably has some dark corners too, but you don't set up geofenced tracking beacons to be alarmed if they stumble slightly off the path you intended them to go.

Children should feel comfortable enough to talk to you about bad stuff they encounter, not feel frightened, that they broke a rule.

[–] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

By the time I was 17, at least on my windows PC, every search I made was reported. Every setting I touched was reported. Every app I use, and how long, reported. Every startup and shutdown reported. Games with chat features were banned. Online games were banned. Every week on Sunday, an email with all this went to my parents, and my dad would forward it to me as a kind of intimidation that "we know all"...

And yes, they used geofenced tracking too.

But I'm a geek, so my Linux laptop and phone were no longer bugged (my only access to other people at the time) by the time I figured it out (around age 16).

Still had to turn the tracker on so they wouldn't ask why the location pings stopped though.

This kind of obsessive control ought to be illegal. I propose privacy rights at age 16, enforceable by fines, with a safe hotline for those with obsessive parents. They were emotionally abusive, control by external restrictions is often only part of the story in cases like mine.

I'm all for safety filters, but parental controls that can be classified as spyware have no place in a parent-child relationship after the age of 16...

[–] Rukmer@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you use these trackers and barge in "hey I saw what you did on the internet, you're in trouble." then you're doing it wrong. Kids need guidance. If you were negligent enough to let your kid roam the city without supervision, you SHOULD have a tracker on them. We're talking about little kids not 16+. Many young kids get themselves killed or groomed or into some kind of cult online. When that happens to young kids, parents are negligent. When 12 year olds get addicted to porn, negligence. You can guide your children without being an asshole. I know a lot of us grew up either completely neglected or completely terrified to make a mistake, but there is an in-between.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When I look outside, there are 5 year olds playing without supervision. They get along just fine.

Not every country is a paranoid dystopia.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Solaris1789@jlai.lu 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even worse using kaspersky...

[–] President@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago

Invasive reports of literally everything. Making it way too easy to control your child to the point of psychical damage, and with some parents a tool for abuse.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Kaspersky is part of Big C and actively tries to suppress knowledge of Rust.

[–] smellythief@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there’s a reliable way to only be alerted to specific activity, then the parents aren’t really actively spying, in the sense that the kids still have privacy when they aren’t transgressing into prohibited space. As long as that prohibited space is reasonable (huge debate possible there of course) and the kids know about the restrictions. imo

[–] ChargedBasisGrand@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

this post is about a child being blocked then reported to their parents for 'teaching crabs to read'
I don't think you can defend it as a reasonable prohibited space

[–] smellythief@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

True. But the comment I was replying to was referencing the monitoring itself, not the outcome.